Vice Adm. Steve Stanley, the director of force structure, resources and assessment on the Joint Staff, told reporters that the budget request represents “where you’re going to first see the swing of not only dollars or resources, but combat capability” from Iraq to Afghanistan.

“The money requested here – about $65 billion for Afghanistan –actually exceeds the $61 billion that we’re requesting for Iraq,” he said. “So that’s the first time in our war costs request.”

Those numbers are based on keeping an average of around 100,000 troops in Iraq and 68,000 in Afghanistan. Troop levels are supposed to come down gradually in Iraq over the next year, and these numbers are based on plans to bring troop levels down to around 50,000 by the end of the fiscal year, according to Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale. In addition to paying for a plus-up of troops, the Afghanistan portion of the operations budget will pay for new equipment, like the scaled-down version of the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected truck that will be customized for the primitive roads of Afghanistan.

Of course, none of these dollar figures are carved in granite. These are just budget promises, based on certain assumptions about how the wars will progress in the year to come. Afghanistan and Iraq have a habit of shredding such predictions. And then, there’s Congress’ habit of packing war spending bills with things that go oink…

The inclusion of the “contingency operations” money in the base Pentagon budget marks a departure with the budgeting practices of the Bush administration, which paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan largely through “emergency” supplemental appropriations. That practice worried lawmakers and budget watchdogs, who argued that the practice limited oversight and encouraged profligate spending. We’ll be taking a closer look at this $664 billion budget, which is supposed to set the template for more disciplined spending within the Department of Defense.